http://www.NewsAndOpinion.com |
Americans have learned from a front page story in The New York Times that, "in a stark shift,?the administration for the first time mostly blames human actions for recent global warming. It says the main culprit is the burning of fossil fuels that send heat-trapping greenhouse gases into the atmosphere."

In the past, President Bush properly noted that, while the earth had warmed at its surface by one degree Fahrenheit over the past century, scientists were still uncertain what caused the warming and what would happen in the century ahead. In addition, the administration urged the weighing of potential benefits against real-life costs -- which could run to $300 billion or more annually. Bush encouraged more research before drawing catastrophic conclusions.

But now, as a result of the new report, which was sent to the United Nations, the stage is set for an inevitable government-run program to cut carbon-dioxide emissions by cutting energy use. And cutting energy use means reducing the rate of economic growth. There's no other way. No wonder the stock market has been falling lately.

By accepting the basic premise of extreme environmentalists, the president will ultimately be forced to accept the major content of the same treaty that he rejected a little over a year ago as "fatally flawed": the Kyoto Protocol, signed by then-Vice President Al Gore in 1997 but never ratified by the U.S. Senate, which instead rejected it before signing by a 95-0 vote.

Bush's about-face, however, fits a pattern. One by one, he has abandoned the principles that attracted conservatives to him in the first place:

"What's left of the conservative agenda that has not been offered up to Democrats?" said Rush Limbaugh today on his national radio program. Let's see:

Free Trade: In order to protect inefficient steel producers and try to win votes in Rust Belt states, Bush agreed to protective tariffs against imports. At every turn now, his attempts to get Europeans and Asians to drop their trade barriers are being met with (accurate) cries of hypocrisy.

Farm Bill: To pander to farmers, he agreed to a bill which, as the Associated Press put it last month, "will shower billions of dollars in new subsidies on political battleground states and scrap a 1996 law that was intended to make growers less dependent on government." The reforms of six years ago marked one of the great achievements of the late Republican Congress.

Spending: Farm subsidies will rise 80 percent under the new bill, but that's hardly surprising since the President -- in nearly every other area of the federal budget -- has decided to abandon fiscal discipline. Surpluses have turned to deficits in the years ahead.

Campaign Finance: In the wake of the Enron scandal, Bush signed a new campaign-finance law that would hurt his own party, enhance the power of organized labor and liberal special interests and limit free political choice.

Education: To get his education bill passed, Bush dropped the most important reform: vouchers. Instead, in league with Sen. Ted Kennedy, he has helped entrench and empower the federal education bureaucracy.

What's going on? It is hard to say. These steps aren't effective even as cynical political maneuvers. Look at the reactions?.

Conservatives: Bush's base is becoming demoralized. No, hard-core Republicans won't vote for a Democrat for president, but if Bush gives up on principles, they won't campaign hard for his re-election either.

Liberals: Will environmentalists be won over by the president's about-face on Kyoto? Hardly. In fact, after effectively silencing them with his strong stand, he has now energized them. They have a strong logical argument to make: If warming is as bad as Bush says it is, then strong remedies are necessary, not the soft stuff he proposes. (Said a headline today on Lycos.com, Bush to Earth: Drop Dead.") Protectionists won't want to stop with steel. They now have ammunition for other fights. The same with campaign reformers, farmers and big spenders.

Independents: Will voters on the fence be drawn to Bush now that he has flip-flopped on Kyoto and signed a farm bill? I doubt it. Bush's greatest asset was his self-confidence, his strong advocacy of principle, his almost ingenuous belief (like Reagan) in doing the right thing. By going wobbly, he impresses no one -- least of all the soccer moms and blue-collar dads who, most of all, want to see a president who knows where he stands and defends what he believes.

So why?

Bush may be suffering from Front-Runner Disease. Out ahead for 2004, Bush does not want to blow his lead by opening himself up to criticism from any quarter: environmentalists, good-government types, protectionists, farmers. He now has an answer for each of them.

He was better off running as an underdog. Back then, all he knew was what he believed in. That's the kind of president Americans want.

Like this writer's work? Why not sign-up for the daily JWR update. It's free. Just click here.

05/29/02: He moves in mysterious ways05/22/02: Reel in these stocks05/15/02: It's a "small" world05/08/02: Goldi-stocks05/02/02: Japanese stock growth?04/30/02: Trust the Bells?04/24/02: Being there is best revenge04/18/02: I'm a Seoul man04/16/02: Analyze this04/09/02: The Dot.Con con game03/21/02: The companies you keep02/28/02: Trusting monopolists02/22/02: How not to get taken when buying stocks 02/06/02: Investing After 9/11 01/30/02: Blue Light Specials? Advice on snapping-up K-Mart or Enron stock01/24/02: Dare to be obscure 01/16/02: Bank on this01/10/02: What goes down... 01/04/02: An asset-focused investor finds 'deep value' stocks12/26/01: High-Tech Funds Low On Tech12/19/01: Tech Sector: Blodget, Meeker, and You12/12/01: Enron's lessons: Be skeptical of experts12/04/01: CLECs alive and well, but not if Tauzin-Dingell passes11/15/01: The "Next Big Thing" in Technology?10/30/01: A National I.D. Card? Yes; Run By Larry Ellison? No10/25/01: Without Bayer, we're bare to bioterror10/18/01: The Battle of Biotech10/05/01: Two Techs for Tough Times09/26/01: The Information War09/05/01: Tech firms built to last through tough times08/23/01: Stocks on the A-List08/17/01: Labor and management finding online learning to their liking08/08/01: Game makers poised to profit07/19/01: Trade Promotion Authority: High-Techís Key Component for Competitiveness07/12/01: Nothingís arbitrary about the contrarians06/27/01: Look to Politics to Find Broadband's Market Cap Shortfall06/22/01: Tech Commodity Buys Available for Mining06/18/01: The Blackout Portfolio06/14/01: The conservation myth stars as latest (sub)urban legend06/07/01: Will America go high tech on the high seas?06/05/01: 'Price gouging' doesn't cut it as reason for rising energy prices06/01/01: Authentication tools opening up opportunities in online security05/25/01: 'Price gouging' doesnít cut it as reason for rising energy prices05/21/01: Banking on High-Tech Education05/17/01: It's No Time to Go Wobbly on Kyoto05/02/01: Diversify with techís leaders04/26/01: To Revive The New Economy, Release A Chokehold  Break Up The Bells04/24/01: Whoís To Blame For Broadband Crisis? Wired Article Points To Bells
04/19/01: The Bush Budget
04/12/01: To revive The New Economy, release a chokehold --- break up the Bells
04/04/01: Even as stocks have fallen, the Net keeps booming
03/28/01: Whereís The Profit In Biotech Future? 03/22/01: The Joy of Debt: The last thing we should want is a U.S. Treasury flush with cash
03/19/01: 'Defensive' Stocks in the NASDAQ03/15/01: Bush administration must say no to Jane and Kyoto03/08/01: Time to buy small caps? Consider these five great techs03/01/01: Billís and Larryís continued political adventures02/26/01: Chips on the Dips? 02/23/01: How Tauzin Can Keep His Word And Stop Telecom "Remonopolization"02/13/01: Consumers, WAKE UP! Middlemen are ripping you off02/02/01: Publicity-Seeking Politicians and Contingency-Fee Lawyers Corrupt the Law01/26/01: DoubleClick, eBay And Their Promising Ilk01/24/01: Will Cyberspace Look Like France or America?12/27/00: Cut interest, taxes and regulation to save high-tech economy12/20/00: Close, But No Big Czar12/15/00: A Down Year? Maybe. But Letís Put It in Perspective12/13/00: Clintonís sorry midnight race into history12/07/00: Is Telecomís Future The Bells, The Bells, and Only The Bells?12/01/00: Money talks and walks in election aftermath11/29/00: Climate Treaty Deadlock Shows Lack of Consensus and Common Sense11/23/00: Climate change participants donít listen to reasons for uncertainty11/21/00: Will Regulators Create a Recession?11/14/00: The Election and the Market10/26/00: Hang on for the long term10/25/00: On privacy, one size doesnít fit all10/24/00: Perish the bearish thought10/19/00: Beating hunger --- the biggest prize10/13/00: Way to play biotech10/12/00: Bush vs. Gore on Technology10/11/00: Global Climate Scare: Fools Rush In10/05/00: Avoid the Apple Trap10/03/00: Goodbye, anti-Microsoft crusader --- and good riddance09/29/00: Should You Invest in Tech IPOs?09/27/00: Could technology end airline delays?09/22/00: Donít Forget Small Caps09/20/00: Is the New York Times Rooting for Disaster?09/13/00: The Best Argument Against Net Regulation08/30/00: Political Risk in Big Drug Stocks07/27/00: Tech Dividends07/25/00: Government Privacy Violators07/20/00: If I Had to Pick One Tech Stock07/18/00: Our Favorite Lawsuit07/13/00: Silicon Valley East07/11/00: Election 2000: Year of the Investor Class?07/07/00: Adventures on the Amazon.com07/06/00:The Difference Between Bill Gates and Larry Ellison06/29/00: In the Chips06/27/00: Free market wins in Federal Court!06/22/00: Wireless Bargains?06/20/00: Is Your SUV Warming the Planet?06/15/00: Shopping for Government06/13/00: Top 10 Tech Stocks06/08/00: Riding the eBook Wave06/06/00: "The Last Mile"06/02/00: Keep Buying!05/31/00: Who Asked the FTC to Regulate Online Privacy?05/25/00: "When Itís Time to Sell"05/23/00: End the "Telephone Tax"05/16/00: Time Warner Gets a Bad Rap